Still Camera is Coming to an End

MadMarco

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Messages
706
Location
Guildford, England
I don't think that mobile phones with cameras will affect the DSLR/large sensor market to any great degree any time soon, they will always be significantly inferior to a "proper" camera.

The compact small sensor market is going to be/is already being decimated. I think that the bridge camera market will survive in a reduced state due to the size limitations of mobile devices.
 

MadMarco

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Messages
706
Location
Guildford, England
I disagree. Many people (at least in Europe where I live) don't have landlines unless they are forced into it for a broadband connection. Many dont use a computer/laptop but tablets and smartphones. I can't remember the last time I used a fax machine.

I you read the article there are many valid points.

Too bad the headline is a bit too sensational.

If you live in the UK and want broadband, then you are pretty much forced into paying for a landline. The broadband packages that don't include a land line cost the same as a landline plus a broadband package. Go figure
 

sgreszcz

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
447
If you live in the UK and want broadband, then you are pretty much forced into paying for a landline. The broadband packages that don't include a land line cost the same as a landline plus a broadband package. Go figure

I do live in the uk and having to pay for a landline that I don't use sucks, however it is still a better deal than what I would pay in Canada for broadband even if it is a broadband only service.
 

tkbslc

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,667
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
I guess this really wasn't supposed to be about bandwidth! I think the U.S. is fine. $50-60 for 15-20Mbit is not bad at all. So what if other countries with much smaller and less disperse populations do better, it's not like the U.S. is using dial up BBS services for web access.

I think the smartphone has killed off the snapshot camera. It's pretty obvious when you look at the sales figures. People who just wanted basic flash and good light snaps are fine on the phone.

I don't know how pro work is defined by the author, but surely amateur family photography has plenty of applications for a large sensor and varied lenses. You even try shooting a school play with a iphone? I see parents trying in futility to do a 5x pinch digital zoom from 20 rows back wondering why it looks like mush. And then there is just general indoor family candids, portraits, school sports, etc. Amateur family stuff is actually very demanding.
 

sgreszcz

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
447
Amateur family stuff is actually very demanding.

Which is exactly why I switched to mirrorless when I had kids. I wasn't carrying the dslr and the iPhone was doing a terrible job especially in lower light.

I weep when I see my mom's blurry iPad and point and shoot shots of family events, especially when in involves active kids.
 

barry

Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,757
Location
Southern California
I don't think 'traditional' cameras will come to an end, but it's what those traditional cameras will look like that will be interesting. For example, newspapers are happy to post readers photos, regardless of the quality, as the photos are often more timely than were a journalist with a camera (note: not a staff photographer) get to the scene.

I think this is where cameras with built-in WiFi, or even built-in 4g (Samsung Android camera?), come in to play.
That said, I don't like managing photos on my phone nor on my wife's iPad. Maybe a Linux or Windows tablet (with real file-management apps and RAW editors) would suit me better.

Barry
 

Lawrence A.

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
1,736
Location
New Mexico
Real Name
Larry
I didn't know what a "real" camera was until I was out of home and in college. My family used old Brownies way back and progressed to 110. The quality was fine for them. Most people never gave a rats - axx about the quality of their snapshots so long as Uncle Charlie was vaguely recognizable. They were shotcuts to memories not works of art. "Real" pictures were what the local photo studio did. There will always be different levels of equipment for different people, but I doubt if still photography is going the way of the dinosaur. We still take pictures even if we don't lug around Andrew Sullivan's humongous plates. Things will change; they always do. Technologies come and go; digital as we know it will not be the last great imaging tech.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I suspect that sooner, rather than later, cameras will start to have much the same interface/apps/capabilities available as do mobile phones, so that they can be used in much the same way.
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
1,053
Location
Springfield, Illinois
I don't think I care all that much. . .

The thing is,
  1. I'm 65, The practical effects probably won't affect my life much either way. I'll probably use the last good camera I manage to buy until I'm dead.
  2. Even if somehow it DOES affect me, I've already decided I will keep on taking pictures no matter what. It is just too much a part of who I am at this point. So even if all that is available is a camera embedded in one of those big flashy pinkie rings with a neural connection directly to my brain AND to Google, AND to the NSA; and the only way to take a picture is to point your fist at something and yell "click!" as loud as you can, I would probably use it anyway.
I will cross that bridge when I come to it. The point is, I'll cross that bridge.
 

pellicle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
3,956
Location
Killarney, OzTrailEYa
Real Name
pellicle
It's funny that you should say that, as many people keep saying that Australia is the most backward country when it comes to internet speeds and access.
the tide is turning for the colonies ... I had better speeds in Japan in 2001 (for less than $20 a month with no limits) than I do in Australia. Same can be said when I lived in Korea (2005) and Finland ...

on topic I think the title should read "stills only cameras" as I think there will always be the capacity to pull a still from them ;-)

"mmm ... yes ... hard to predict the future is" (Yoda)
 

bye

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,664
An interesting post: http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2015...camera-is-coming-to-and-end-for-all-but-pros/.

I'm not entirely convinced, but I think that this prediction may well affect the Canon/Nikon (maybe Sony) more than anyone else. If anything, I think mirrorless cameras have greater potential to ride out the storm.

I am convinced this is becoming true. The ambassadors that Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Sony use are listened by the old timers like us because we grew up with them and they are the brand name we associate closely, but are shunned by the new generations who know bloggers by their Youtube videos or their sensational huff pieces that create flame wars for click traffic. If you look at camera sales in general, it keeps shrinking. Basically, you have many companies stealing sales by making camera with more claimed DR, and more claimed megapixels. They are basically fighting tooth and nail for the last bastion of pro shooters and pro amateurs with lots of money. What about the new generation? They are brought up with iOS/Android and literally their darkroom is Photoshop Express or Filterstorm. Many of these self-styled photo guru with iOS are the photographers who are being ridiculed by pro photographers not even knowing who they really are and know them personally just because they teach students unorthodox, un-classic style and un-photographic old school centric techniques. So we assumed they are wrong and that their students will know and found out and then will happily adopt a mirrorless camera or a DSLR because that's how photography should be done. I don't think so.. Every new generation brings news things, new ideas and new solutions. Only us who are afraid of change think it is not true.

That my friend is an illusion. You are not doing the things that your parents used to do and neither is your children doing things exactly like you, so what would new generation of photographers do the things we expect them to do; to take pictures the classic way with a DSLR or a mirrorless camera? Why use an Abacus when you can use an electronic calculator! I see many store owners hoping that way. See, these delusional people are confident these iOS/Android users will eventually buy a real camera. You can wait till the cows come home but they won't appear.

What this means to camera makers is that, as sales dwindle and shrink like the HIFI days and the Personal Computer days, there will be less innovation and less traditional cameras available. Just try to find a speciality HIFI dedicated store today. They were plentiful in the 70s and 80s. Remember there was once a place called the "Arcade" where you can play video games. Well, when video game machines came into the homes, it spelled doom to the Arcade owners. But then, there was a time these owners were delusional too because they believed Arcade machines were more powerful, more graphics. But just like everyone who is delusional that the old times would come back is that, what killed the Arcade was basically convenience. You can play at home rather than trek to a joint and you can play all the time despite the machine then were less powerful than the ones in the Arcade joint.

Pros will use DSLRs and mirrorless but for how long? Still imaging isn't paying much these days anyhow and about 90% imaging go on the web for tablet and phone consumption. Which means, do we really need a 200MP camera for web? Do we need 15 stops DR for the web when print demand is low?

All of this doesn't change what we do. We can continue taking photographs with our cameras and enjoy our art, but the future generation will not share the same aspirations as we do.
 
Last edited:

bye

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,664
The issue of connectivity is a vexing one for many, but on the subject of mobile phone cameras taking over from the DSLR, I think the article has some merit. More and more people never experience any other camera but that in a mobile phone, so a DSLR will be completely alien to them (in an ownership sense). That's why I think that mirrorless cameras potentially have a better future, as for those who have been brought up on phone cameras wishing to take better photos, may well not want the size and weight involved with traditional DSLRs, but moving up to a mirrorless camera may not be such a burden.

It's social media and the speed it needs to achieve convenience wise. Mirrorless and DSLR are the same beasts. Just one without the mirror. They both don't run iOS/Android apps and don't have the social media solutions. I'm not sure why some of us are still "piping" that eventually these iPhone users will want a mirrorless camera because they wish to take a better photo.

Do you see an arcade joint today? Then, these owners were piping the dream that these video gamers with less powerful machine at home will realize that you can get better game play in the arcade because the machines in there are more powerful and have more graphics. Sadly, that's an illusion. What the owners didn't realize was, the arcade was an inconvenience. You need to get out of the house to play a game rather than stay in it!!

The problem with traditional cameras isn't that it doesn't take better pictures than an iPhone. It does. But to get the same social media access, you first need an iOS/Android device, then transfer the images to the device and downsize them to a manageable size for social media uploading. Do you start to get a picture here? It's like the arcade example again. It's the inconvenience of taking out the pictures from the camera and the putting into the phone or tablet. So why can't you just take a photo right from the tablet/phone?!? Well guess what; they do and that's how Apple still rake in billions in sales.

Camera makers are like arcade owners; delusional until the end!
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I believe that there will be a change in attitude some time hence where many who cut their teeth on the likes of the iPhone will want better, or different. They will realise that the iPhone won't deliver everything that they want or let then grow, so they will go looking for better. Whether they will go looking for full blown DSLRs or more practical mirrorless options is something else.

I think the first steps will be to mirrorless because these cameras are already somewhat like a phone camera, as you can see what you're getting in the viewfinder etc. If the camera does nothing more than connect to their iPhone when they take a photo, that may well be good enough for what they want. The guy with just the iPhone didn't get that shot of the Yeti, but the one with the mirrorless did and it's now being sent the world over via their iPhone.

The Olympus Air has the potential to be a bridge between the phone and traditional camera.
 

wjiang

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
7,764
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Most of what I see on Facebook, etc, from phones is either the same old 28mm equivalent view (with distorted heads when used for selfie portraits), or a giant vacuum panorama with no clear subject... I spent a year with only my Android phone as my camera... it was kind of miserable and is what launched me into the mu/43 world. By the time I've got it unlocked and ready, the shot is gone. The battery life is also kind of disappointing - if I were to use it seriously for photography as well as communication duty it would last about half a day.

FYI, in New Zealand I've got 30Mbps/s fibre plus a SIP landline number for $75 a month... I see that they're rolling out 1Gbps fibre for $99 (not kidding) in certain regions as well...
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
Just to add to this, in a somewhat related/unrelated way, I received a Nokia Lumia 630 phone I'd ordered for my wife today and when I finally got around to setting it all up, I was so impressed that I ordered one for myself. I'd been eschewing smart phones for some years, mainly due to poor experiences, but now I simply have to admit that I was wrong; things have changed.

Clearly progress is not stopping, which brings me to the part that's relevant to this thread and that's forthcoming phones such as the Microsoft Lumia 940: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/new-prod...windows-10-phone-uk-release-date-price-specs/. This is the beginning, not half time.
 

val

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
548
Location
Australia
Real Name
William
Vincent is a great and respected photographer/director and yet I think he's exaggerating.

I enjoy using quality glass, sensor. Changing lenses for different field of views and apertures. Getting excellent shots that make me appreciate the tools that I have. Tools that fulfill my vision.

I'm just a hobbyist but I sincerly doubt a smartphone camera could give me that fulfillment.

Olympus AIR is a different story.
 

DynaSport

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
3,029
Real Name
Dan
If I could get the pictures with my phone that I can get with my camera, I wouldn't bother carrying a camera around. But I can't. And I think it's sites like this where I can see what is possible that help me to realize that. If I didn't know what was possible, I might be satisfied with my phone. I think people have to be exposed to good photos to know what they are missing. That is one reason I have recently been sharing some of my favorite photos on FB. I'm no great photographer, but I do take pictures from time to time that aren't possible with my phone. And they often spark a discussion and I am able to tell people about my camera and how I was able to take the photo. I hope that I am somehow generating an interest in someone about photography.

What actually concerns me more than what gear someone uses, is the fact that so few photos are printed anymore. My uncle recently posted some photos on FB of himself and others including my dad who recently passed away, that were taken about 60 years ago. It was amazing for me to see the photos. They had been stored away somewhere for many years and my uncle has them now. I think about all the photos I have on my computer of family and friends and wonder what will happen to them all when I pass away.
 

pellicle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
3,956
Location
Killarney, OzTrailEYa
Real Name
pellicle
Just to add to this, in a somewhat related/unrelated way, I received a Nokia Lumia 630 ...phone I'd ordered for my wife today and when I finally got around to setting it all up, I was so impressed that I ordered one for myself. I'd been eschewing smart phones for some years, mainly due to poor experiences, but now I simply have to admit that I was wrong; things have changed.

I bought my Nokia E72 in 2011 ... its a 2009 phone and still the camera in that phone is equal to the latest phones (not the latest Nokia / Microsoft phones where its a bit behind but better than Samsung Galaxy S4) and better than many compact digicams.

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2012/04/nokia-e72-cam-vs-digicam.html
 

MadMarco

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Messages
706
Location
Guildford, England
I haven't seen any significant increase in the quality of cameras in mobile phones in the last 2-3 years (megapickles war is primarily to blame I think).

My Z3 Compact which has the apparently highly rated Sony 20Mp sensors is no better than the 8Mp camera in my old Galaxy S3 once the light levels starts to decline. To be honest I think that the S3 gives it a good run for it's money outdoors in bright sunlight (quite disappointing really).

Here are a couple of cropped snaps taken back to back indoors during daylight hours; it really wasn't that dark, but both cameras made a bit of a mess of it. There is so much NR on the Sony shot that the details have completely disappeared.

I didn't test it at the time, but I think that 8Mp camera in my Nokia Lumia 925 work phone is better than both of them although not by a huge margin. Fortunately I bought the Z3 compact for is small size, performance (it is a zippy little thing) and it's battery life which is very good.

Galaxy S3
SGS3-Standard_DxO1.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Sony Z3 Compact
Z3C-HighISO_DxO1.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom